Staff - SJ

About

Username
Staff - SJ
Joined
Visits
457
Last Active
Roles
Member, Moderator

Comments

  • Apologies for the delay. I think this is somewhat of a trick question that you could get by process of elimination. An SAO would really never disclose revenue, employee details, marketing or investment information (if I'm looking at the right que…
    in Another Multiple Choice Comment by Staff - SJ February 3
  • Yes, in this problem, the word "indicated" makes the difference. An actuary comes up with an actuarial indication of what reserves should be. This may be a point estimate, a range, or both. In reality, management of the company gets to set the…
    in RMAD Carried or Point Estimate? Comment by Staff - SJ February 3
  • Yes, this is a typo. The other examples they reference (5% of held and 15% of held) are correct.
    in Problem 24a Comment by Staff - SJ January 28
  • See my response to this question here for more details: https://battleacts6us.ca/vanillaforum6us/discussion/1001/question-regarding-the-l-in-the-acronym-slush#latest TLDR: Source material doesn't list any LOBs specifically, so knowing the acronym…
    in Lines of Business Exempt (Battlecard #4 for Odomirok 16-17) Comment by Staff - SJ January 28
  • You would generally prefer the range estimated by others to be small so it has the least impact on the total reserves you are opining on. That's essentially what "effect of variations in other person's estimates on AA's opinion" is referring to. …
    in Work of others: Effect of variations in other person's estimates on appointed actuary's opinion Comment by Staff - SJ January 27
  • Here's a link (also referenced in the NAIC.SSAP-62R page) that explains the difference between prospective and retroactive reinsurance: https://investopedia.com/terms/p/prospective-reinsurance.asp Any reserves assumed under retroactive reinsuranc…
    in retroactive reinsurance assumed reserves Comment by Staff - SJ January 27
  • Best practice is to first check carried reserves + materiality standard for RMAD. If that indicates no RMAD, then the next step is to check the Bright Line test. If carried reserves + materiality standard does indicate RMAD, there really is no need …
    in Question #19, part b. Comment by Staff - SJ January 27
  • I tend to think this question is poorly worded (and explained!). In my opinion, I think the point the Examiner's Report is trying to get across is that it's the AA's responsibility to know/review/address the significant data items before writing the…
    in Spring 2016 Q 21 a Comment by Staff - SJ January 21
  • That is true, the ASB promulgates ASOPs. I looked in the BattleCards for Odomirok16-17 and searched the article - I couldn't find the question you are referencing. Want to be sure we correct it if needed.
    in Clarification RE MC Question in Odomirok_16-17-SAO (Scope Section) Comment by Staff - SJ January 21
  • In that situation, the AA just needs to directly state that there is no RMAD. You can find this in the COPLFR source text in Section 5.2: The appointed actuary is required to make "an explicit statement of whether the Appointed Actuary reasonably…
    in No Risks that could result in MAD Comment by Staff - SJ January 21
  • The source material doesn't specifically call out any lines of business - so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this. Here's my 2 cents on it, though: to get an exemption, a company needs to file for it (it's not just automatically granted). The…
    in Question Regarding the L in the acronym SLuSH Comment by Staff - SJ January 21
  • * There is a typo in the examiner's report - you're correct that the actuary's point estimate should be 800 as noted in the table. * The materiality standard of 100 given in the examiner's report is solely one example given - as long as you can j…
    in Fall 2014 22 b Comment by Staff - SJ January 16